I spent the day in a 2012 MB B52 this past weekend (currently have a 2008 SANTE 210) and I have to say that I was blown away by the quality and wake of this boat (I haven't had much exposure to other boats outside the "Big 3").

Wake: Just stock, big, meaty, loads of pop, super clean and easy to balance side-to-side. Hands down the best "stock wake" I have ever ridden. The non-pump ballast system is just brilliant and the surf wake was incredible too.

Interior: Vinyl was top notch, I felt like it was every bit as well put together as my CC. I really liked the patterns in the vinyl too. The magnetic carpet is a really nice feature also - no snaps to break or to step on when the carpet is removed. Seats were comfy and storage was ample.

Exterior: Swim deck was super solid (mine tends to bounce a little bit), tower never made one hint of a rattle even after hitting monster rollers going down the lake at transit speed, and I love how the graphics are embedded in the Gel Coat (no need to worry about a peeling or faded decal).

Verdict: IMO, as the Big 3 keep going up in price (seems like almost all of their models are now in excess of $100k) and pricing those of us that do not make loads of money out of the market, quality "price point" boats like MBs/Supras/Axis/etc. are only going to gain in popularity as people realize that they can give the "majors" a run for their money in terms of wake, quality, etc. Exciting times for our sport.

great info andrew! in your opinion how did the wake compare to your sante? It is my understanding that the newer MB's have a rampier wake vs the steep wake of a sante? Did you happen to snap any shots of the wake? I am looking at a 21tomcat and currently have an 06 B52. I would like to demo the new 23B52 and check out the differences as well.

For what its worth I have owned mine since 06 and it has been nothing but great. No issues whatsoever outside of regular maintenance..

I've only had my 23TWB a few weeks now, but it seems to me if you run full ballast you get a steep wake, but if you drop down to 2/3-3/4 you get more of a ramp. I have not tried running anything over stock for wakeboarding yet. Stock is plenty for me.

Sean - "Hate2party" is spot on. My 2008 SANTE's wake is not all that steep compared to the 2006 and older 210's. It is much rampier and has that nice Nautique lip at the top that kicks you up (my neighbor has a 2006 210 - its extremely hard for me to ride because of how steep the wake is). The B52's wake I felt was a little steeper than my 2008 210 and much meatier - there is no punching through this wake because of how thick the wall is. The B52 wake was noticeably bigger than my 210 even when I run full Fly High on top of factory ballast (about 2300lbs total), but it was not so big/steep that it was intimidating (like I imagine something like the G23 to be). My second jump, I went for a Tantrum, over rotated like crazy doing basically a 1 1/2 and landed flat on my back about 5 feet out in the flats....ouch! At that point, I realized you have to do minimal work to get blasted off of this B52 wake. I spent the rest of the day just crusing in on a mild edge and letting it just throw me up. I think I can come up with some wake pics for you as some guys in the boat were taking pics - I'll see what I can get.

Jon - I can't imagine ever needing anything over stock in this thing, seriously. There was a really good younger kid in the boat with us and every trick he did was either even with or over the height of the tower.....and it looked like he was barely cutting. The B52 is straight up ridiculous for a stock wake.

^^^^ Don't get too excited about the WS system that comes in MB's. I've had that system, and it is not good. The sub is small and underpowered. And the tower speakers are underpowered and old generation. I made the mistake of ordering that system on my last boat. It was not a cheap upgrade. And it sucked. You can't hear it at riding distance and the amps liked to cut out frequently. Save your money do it yourself aftermarket.

But everything else you said is true... the MB B52 23 TWB is a sweet boat and a great value.

^^^^ Don't get too excited about the WS system that comes in MB's. I've had that system, and it is not good. The sub is small and underpowered. And the tower speakers are underpowered and old generation. I made the mistake of ordering that system on my last boat. It was not a cheap upgrade. And it sucked. You can't hear it at riding distance and the amps liked to cut out frequently. Save your money do it yourself aftermarket.

But everything else you said is true... the MB B52 23 TWB is a sweet boat and a great value.

I see your point on the sub and tower speakers but it still has to be better then 95% of other manufacturer's stock stereo. Isnt' the wetsounds sub, amp and interiors all stock on the MB? THe only thing you are upgrading is the tower and amp for the tower, right? What wetsounds interior do they use the XS-65 or XS-650's? What amp runs them?

DBC - thanks for clarifying on the WS speakers for the MB. I'm new to the wake stereo scene (actually have some REV 10s on order right now), so anything with that WS logo spins my props!

Troy - easy question for me to answer because there was only one thing I wasn't jazzed about on the MB. The dash is a bit dated IMO and has a lot going on (many gauges). However, once you know where all of the essentials are located, its easy to drive and glance down for the info you need. Also, with all of these fancy dashes coming out (Lync, Maliview, etc.), which in turn are helping drive up the prices of the Big 3 models, analog gauges are looking better and better to me in terms of reliability and simplicity. The new digital displays are sick when they are brand new and working correctly, but I have to believe they are going to be high $$$ to fix/replace and might suffer some reliability issues early on until the mfg's work the bugs out.

If you could pick out one thing you didn't like about the MB what would it be?

We are just getting set to roll over 100 hours in our 2011 23 twb (purchased last August). My list of gripes:

1. Hour meter runs on key-up even if boat isn't running. It should be tied to the fuel pump or something else but it's not, and the MB warranty specifically states that tampering with the hour meter is a breach of the warranty. So even though fixing this oversight should be easy, you put the warranty at risk if you do it.

2. In ACC mode none of the gauges work. It'd be nice to be able to open the tanks and see depth in ACC mode. As it stands you need to key-up and put minutes on the boat to do this.

3. The rear sunpad with the electrical battle ram is tiresome. I'd really like a shock assisted lift instead (looks like they did this in some 2012s?).

4. No raw water seacock (this is going to be on my tombstone, I think).

5. The factory triple racks really don't hold the bottom wakeboard well at all if you are running a surfboard in the middle. The angle of the forks isn't steep enough and the bungee tension is too soft. Can cause surprises in heavy chop.

(prior boat was 2006 vride; I've never owned a big 3 flagship, so there are probably other features I don't know I'm missing).

I can't speak for how well the new MB's will hold up but I have to imagine it will be even better than the older ones. My 06 B52 has held up great and I have had no major repair issues...knock on wood. I have around 630hrs on mine.

I am working on setting up a demo for the new B52. I am not sure if the steep wake is best suitable for my riding style. No doubt it boots me, however I tend to feel less under control sometimes...if that makes any sense.. Have ridden some rampier wakes recently and felt more of a controlled straight up and down pop... I am sure it all has to do with my wake approach..

I was "this" close to getting a new MB, only went with a Malibu because I got a great deal on a new 'Bu that was a reasonable bump for me. I do agree with the original poster though on the price point getting ridiculous. Even if you can afford it, the thought of dropping 6 figures on a boat is insane. I guess it's nice to know there are other options out there to get a damn good boat at a more reasonable price point. I love the big 3 (I've now owned one of each of them), but there are other good options out there certainly.

I see your point on the sub and tower speakers but it still has to be better then 95% of other manufacturer's stock stereo. Isnt' the wetsounds sub, amp and interiors all stock on the MB? THe only thing you are upgrading is the tower and amp for the tower, right? What wetsounds interior do they use the XS-65 or XS-650's? What amp runs them?

The stock system on the MB consists of 6-XS 65's, and a WS-10FA sub. THe stock amp is a Syn 4. The way they wire it from the factory is with the sub bridged on the back channels and 4 of the 6 inboats are wired in series to the front channels.. the other 2 inboats are wired to the stock clarion head unit.

IMO the stock system is just kind of there.. it sounds ok but really if you are just hangin out and floating in the boat.. the sub and especially the sub location is terrible..

I also thought MB could have done a little better quality job with the installation (both materials and tuning) but they are not stereo people.. they are boat builders..

The stock system on the MB consists of 6-XS 65's, and a WS-10FA sub. THe stock amp is a Syn 4. The way they wire it from the factory is with the sub bridged on the back channels and 4 of the 6 inboats are wired in series to the front channels.. the other 2 inboats are wired to the stock clarion head unit.

IMO the stock system is just kind of there.. it sounds ok but really if you are just hangin out and floating in the boat.. the sub and especially the sub location is terrible..

I also thought MB could have done a little better quality job with the installation (both materials and tuning) but they are not stereo people.. they are boat builders..

I have an old style 210 SANTE and it's loaded to the gills (over 3k in weight before people) and I love my wake hands down. BUT the damn B52s are soooo dope from a riders point of view. And if you thought the stock wake rocked add a 650 in the center and a 500 up front, now becomes my wet dream behind a boat for my snowboard background (turned all wake about 7yrs ago)
So yea price point inside and out best boat on the water hands down, and drives great too
Larson Marine out of Sacramento CA let me test drive one and would've bought it if I could afford a new boat and if my SANTE would let me cheat on it haha

Does that mean if you are floating around just listening to the stereo or drinking, with the ignition switch set to acc - then your hour meter is ticking?
That is awful. It's a worse oversight than the stupid early 2000's digital tachometers on Nautiques that not only were utterly defective (I've replaced mine twice), but were also the ONLY place that hours were stored. So stupid. So your tach goes, and that puts you back at 000 hours. Nice if you're the owner... tread lightly if you're a buyer.

Does that mean if you are floating around just listening to the stereo or drinking, with the ignition switch set to acc - then your hour meter is ticking?
That is awful. It's a worse oversight than the stupid early 2000's digital tachometers on Nautiques that not only were utterly defective (I've replaced mine twice), but were also the ONLY place that hours were stored. So stupid. So your tach goes, and that puts you back at 000 hours. Nice if you're the owner... tread lightly if you're a buyer.

If mine is on acc the hour meter is running since it boots the computer. I do not have to have the key on in the boat to listen to the radio. It is pretty annoying that when I get in the boat to adjust or add rider presets etc.. that hour meter is running. Boats are not the only things that work this way now either four wheelers and side by sides that have hour meters do as well.

All ACC does on the MB is run the stereo. I have my stereo running from a switch on the dash instead, so for me ACC does nothing. It would be nice if ACC at least let you see the depth and open and close the ballast gates.

Alas these are pretty minor gripes. I've gotten used to it, but if MB wants to compete with the big boys, they need to work these little details out.

Real hours are stored on the ECU. The hours on the gauge only run when the key is set to run, not ACC.

This is still not ideal, but is tolerable.

I think you're wrong if you're responding to me. Idon't think that applies to the older Nautiques (Super Sport, 210 hull, push button start, Ford big block). As far as I know, the ONLY place to pull hours from is the tach on that boat.

If I am wrong, so is the entire Nautique dealer network, everyone at PlanetNautique, and a bunch of people from here.

I can open and close the ballast with it on ACC, or I'm pretty sure I can.

that would be a switch from 2011 (and a change for the better). If you could check I'd appreciate it, because I'd like to rewire mine to work that way too. I guess I'd also need power to the ballast gauge on the dash as well.

I spent the day in a 2012 MB B52 this past weekend (currently have a 2008 SANTE 210) and I have to say that I was blown away by the quality and wake of this boat (I haven't had much exposure to other boats outside the "Big 3").

Wake: Just stock, big, meaty, loads of pop, super clean and easy to balance side-to-side. Hands down the best "stock wake" I have ever ridden. The non-pump ballast system is just brilliant and the surf wake was incredible too.

Interior: Vinyl was top notch, I felt like it was every bit as well put together as my CC. I really liked the patterns in the vinyl too. The magnetic carpet is a really nice feature also - no snaps to break or to step on when the carpet is removed. Seats were comfy and storage was ample.

Exterior: Swim deck was super solid (mine tends to bounce a little bit), tower never made one hint of a rattle even after hitting monster rollers going down the lake at transit speed, and I love how the graphics are embedded in the Gel Coat (no need to worry about a peeling or faded decal).

Verdict: IMO, as the Big 3 keep going up in price (seems like almost all of their models are now in excess of $100k) and pricing those of us that do not make loads of money out of the market, quality "price point" boats like MBs/Supras/Axis/etc. are only going to gain in popularity as people realize that they can give the "majors" a run for their money in terms of wake, quality, etc. Exciting times for our sport.

Last month you where all in love with the star now it's MB. How'd the MB stack up to the Xstar?

Last month you where all in love with the star now it's MB. How'd the MB stack up to the Xstar?

I want add this MB to the current G23/XStar shoot out.

For you Johnny-come-latelys, here is my summary thus far:

G23-huge, clean wake, not known if they are actually producing this boat or if it was/is a concept. Questionable transmission, no rear Sundeck, and don't ask an owner what they do for a living.

New Star-mediocre wake, 3 feet of pickle on the fork, but all the big tricks being landed behind this thing and a wait list 200 douchebags long to buy one.

MB-can buy 14 for the price of a Star or G23. Certified perfect. Should sue Mastercraft because they stole the super-pickle concept. Were doing tribal graphics on their gels before, during, and after they were cool.

Im pretty sure that they are producing the G23, as Ive seen them outside of the original 3. Actually ironj on this forum just took delivery of his. And they do have a sundeck, a filler cushion goes in place of the walkthrough.

Im pretty sure that they are producing the G23, as Ive seen them outside of the original 3. Actually ironj on this forum just took delivery of his. And they do have a sundeck, a filler cushion goes in place of the walkthrough.

The are also producing new Stars and MB's. Stars and MB's also have sun decks. Score still tied at nil.

So it looks like we are in a 3-way dead heat for wakeboat supremacy. Who will emerge victorious? Stay tuned.

Troy, do you ever actually bring anything worth while to this board? Everything you post is some sarcastic BS in threads that have to do with the Xstar, G23 or MB. That and trolling like no other to get mhunter to jump in. It is kind of annoying to see you consistently hijack these threads.

The best way to compare a 2012 boat is to another 2012 boat . I think all builders have stepped it up in the past 4 years . Not saying anything bad about any boat but I think if you compared any 2012 to a 2008 it would come out on top. I dont think MB is in the same class as MC or Nautique yet but who knows ?

The best way to compare a 2012 boat is to another 2012 boat . I think all builders have stepped it up in the past 4 years . Not saying anything bad about any boat but I think if you compared any 2012 to a 2008 it would come out on top. I dont think MB is in the same class as MC or Nautique yet but who knows ?

Another way to look at it might be to say that the best way to compare $55K boats is to look at other $55k boats.

The best way to compare a 2012 boat is to another 2012 boat . I think all builders have stepped it up in the past 4 years . Not saying anything bad about any boat but I think if you compared any 2012 to a 2008 it would come out on top. I dont think MB is in the same class as MC or Nautique yet but who knows ?

I have no problem with the OP comparing a 2012 MB to his own 2008 SANTE 210. Afterall, that's what he owns. It's a natural comparison for him to make. It's what he knows... it's his baseline.

Besides, how much has really changed about the 210 since 2008...? Using the catagories the OP stated: Wake... nope, same hull. Interior... not that I'm aware of. Exterior... same bird decal, right? About the only thing they've changed (to my knowledge) is the the screen on the dash (which is an option), maybe a different tower (haven't heard anybody raving about those), and the price probably went up $20K. Other than that, isn't a 2012 the same basic boat as a 2008? I think that makes it valid comparison for others as well.

If you are going to compare an MB to any of the Big 3, I've always found the comparison to CC the most interesting because the wake shape is similar (steep) and up until this very recently they have had the same engines (PCM).

I looked at this guy's post history. "Blown away" is how he appears to feel about several boats but not his 2008 210. I am a Nautique guy and I am not into the new 210 one single bit either. I think that is an elephant in the room, but that boat missed the mark big time for me. It is a disappointing update to a classic hull. He's slobbering over X-Stars and MB's and whatever else. Sounds like he's had mechanical issues with the boat in addition to the boat not really being Nautique's finest work. Dump that Nautique - it wasn't meant to be dude.

The best part of this thread is this:

Quote:

If you could pick out one thing you didn't like about the MB what would it be?

Would you feel the same comparing a 2012 MB to a 08 X15 or VLX . The same could be said for them as far as wake ,interior, exterior and tower. I still think the MB would have an edge being 4 years newer. If he has had problems with his 210 then any new boat should blow him away.

Would you feel the same comparing a 2012 MB to a 08 X15 or VLX . The same could be said for them as far as wake ,interior, exterior and tower. I still think the MB would have an edge being 4 years newer. If he has had problems with his 210 then any new boat should blow him away.

Well the VLX has been completely changed since 2008... It's a completely different boat from top to bottom... so the comparison might not be helpful for other readers, but it would still be a valid comparison for the OP to make. The X15 and the 210 haven't changed much since 2008 so those comparisons would be helpful to even new boat shoppers who might be considering a new MB along with those Big 3 models.

The only really advantage a "newer" boat has is condition, wear & tear, etc. But those aren't really the stuff the OP mentioned.

Either way, my point is this... If your buddy took you out in his new 2012 Axis (to pick something different), every impression you have about that boat would be in comparison to your own boat. It's only natural, and completely valid.

I'm not one of those guys who gets riled up about apples to oranges comparisons on the boat forum. We are not magazine editors with access to all the newest boat models for detailed testing. We ride our own boats and our buddies' boats (whatever they may have). Sometimes that makes for odd comparisons and apples to oranges impressions... But they are impressions nonetheless. I say post it all... More info is better than less.

I think its all the MB ball washing that gets to people. Like I said, comparing a brand new almost 70k MB to a 08 SANTE 210 is a bit humorous, especially when items like loose swim platforms are brought up.

Anyone saying the current 210 missed the mark flat out is wrong. Great boat, versatile wake, and it doesn't have the wash issues the 230 can suffer from. Most importantly, it addressed the trough issue the first gen 210 suffered from. The fact is it has remained relatively unchanged since 2007 and continues to sell well, if it had the short run and low production numbers the 220 perhaps it would be easier to agree with you...

I think its all the MB ball washing that gets to people. Like I said, comparing a brand new almost 70k MB to a 08 SANTE 210 is a bit humorous, especially when items like loose swim platforms are brought up.

Anyone saying the current 210 missed the mark flat out is wrong. Great boat, versatile wake, and it doesn't have the wash issues the 230 can suffer from. Most importantly, it addressed the trough issue the first gen 210 suffered from. The fact is it has remained relatively unchanged since 2007 and continues to sell well, if it had the short run and low production numbers the 220 perhaps it would be easier to agree with you...

Say what you will, sounds like you own one.
The company tacitly acknowledged the fact that this 210 isn't what it could be by releasing the 230 as a different hull - not just an elongated 210. I have been behind the 210, and unweighted it is disappointing. I don't think there is an argument to be made against that - it is small, it really is. Weighted it improves. Trough gone, yes. Old 210 better? Yerp.There is a reason why the top Correct Craft riders get a 230 and not a 210. You don't have to agree with me, I don't care. I think this guy is discovering the 210 is a problem, he's looking for an out. I get it.

I think some of you have missed the OP's point, he went out expecting to ride behind an OK wake in an OK boat, it exceeded his expectations and in his words, he was blown away. Now to compare $ to $ I do not think you can get a 2012 SAN 210 with the 409 for 70 but you can get a 2012 23 B52 loaded for under 70 with the upgraded 409. And to compare 23ft to 23ft a SAN 230 would be at least 15 more than a 210, so call it 85.

IG23-huge, clean wake, not known if they are actually producing this boat or if it was/is a concept.

You are clearly just a troll. Pictures of a dozen production G23's are all over this forum and were posted in response the last time you and a MC dealer were attempting to spread this BS rumor. I got to check out a production G23 in person just last weekend, it was towing a local boarding competition.

I've never ridden a MB but I'm surprised the ballast fill and dump is not mentioned as an outstanding feature. Maybe I'm wrong but from what I have seen on the website all manufacturers should be employing a similar system. I also like the old style gauge dashes. I don't want that multi screen display.

You are clearly just a troll. Pictures of a dozen production G23's are all over this forum and were posted in response the last time you and a MC dealer were attempting to spread this BS rumor. I got to check out a production G23 in person just last weekend, it was towing a local boarding competition.

To be honest, I think they have built about 10 of them so far. I think they need to start showing different variations of the built G23's because if I wasn't all over forums, I might think it was a concept too. They keep showing the blue & black one, and that green and black one. Almost all events and coverage actually just use that blue and black one and it's getting to the point where they need to demonstrate more publicly that these boats are getting built. I know it's happening but not everyone does. Not everyone is on forums and knows this s#*t as well as we do. That's partly why the 2013 X-Star will probably do ok despite everything. We know it's a problem, but average Joe Grind doesn't.

I've never ridden a MB but I'm surprised the ballast fill and dump is not mentioned as an outstanding feature. Maybe I'm wrong but from what I have seen on the website all manufacturers should be employing a similar system.

Is today your first day on Wakeworld...? The "pure vert" ballast system on MB's has been discussed ad nauseum. Almost every MB owner talks about it and YouTube is full of videos showing it.

Frankly, I've had it in two boats. And yes, it's nice. But like all ballast systems it has weaknesses. The biggest is that you can't get weight to the belly or the bow. This is huge, IMHO. Just look at how many MB owners are putting 500 lb. sacks in their bows... Or how many are adding sacks for their surf wake. The MB system is sweet if you only run stock ballast, but the minute you add a sack and a pump you have defeated the purpose.

The other thing to keep in mind is that pump systems are getting faster and faster. Is 2-3 mins really too long to wait anymore? I don't think so especially when you get the advantage of having bow and belly ballast.

Is today your first day on Wakeworld...? The "pure vert" ballast system on MB's has been discussed ad nauseum. Almost every MB owner talks about it and YouTube is full of videos showing it.

Frankly, I've had it in two boats. And yes, it's nice. But like all ballast systems it has weaknesses. The biggest is that you can't get weight to the belly or the bow. This is huge, IMHO. Just look at how many MB owners are putting 500 lb. sacks in their bows... Or how many are adding sacks for their surf wake. The MB system is sweet if you only run stock ballast, but the minute you add a sack and a pump you have defeated the purpose.

The other thing to keep in mind is that pump systems are getting faster and faster. Is 2-3 mins really too long to wait anymore? I don't think so especially when you get the advantage of having bow and belly ballast.

LOL, till you then read all the threads complaining about the lack of storage (Levi's x30 vs LSV thread comes to mind, where the MC was given points for bow storage over the LSV even though that means no bow ballast).

Tradeoffs indeed!

For the record, is anybody advocating weight in the nose on the MB 23s?

LOL, till you then read all the threads complaining about the lack of storage (Levi's x30 vs LSV thread comes to mind, where the MC was given points for bow storage over the LSV even though that means no bow ballast).

Tradeoffs indeed!

For the record, is anybody advocating weight in the nose on the MB 23s?

I think the consensus is no in the 23's and the 23's don't need the trim plate either. That being said if I was ever to buy a new MB whether it be a 21' or 23' I could probably want 300-500 pounds of lead bags plus plumb in as big of sacks as I could in the rear vdrive compartments. Not because I really need it but because it would be killer with that setup.

I'm no pro, but for wakeboarding I see no reason to add anything over stock weight in the 23' boats. For surfing you can run only stock and it's surfable, but if you want to get it big you have to run as much weight as you would in any other boat.

Question to the MB owners - Are you all concerned about not having the PCM powerplant anymore? How do you feel about this? What are your honest thoughts....

My best buddy who owns the MB B52V23 with the PCM powerplant - has decided not to move forward with a new V23 - (which was his initial plan) since they are no longer running PCM. Hes decided to move to another brand once he sells his V23.

BTW - he unlike the OP here - loves my 210 wake better than any other wake we have in the stable of boats our crew has. I do LOOOVE- his wake also like the OP here does.

Miguel, is a PCM vs Indmar really that big of difference to completely cross it off his list. That seems absolutely stupid considering they all use the same blocks. It seems like some think PCM is better(I have no idea) but I would imagine Indmar and PCM have almost identical reliability and power.

I'm no pro, but for wakeboarding I see no reason to add anything over stock weight in the 23' boats. For surfing you can run only stock and it's surfable, but if you want to get it big you have to run as much weight as you would in any other boat.

Have you ever been behind one of the 23' boats?

Cuz you do have to weight them lil homie. You do. 23' is just 600lbs or so more than a 21' boat, whose weight delta is spread across those extra feet of hull. They still need to be tanked. With the bigger boats there is just more room to hide it.

Cuz you do have to weight them lil homie. You do. 23' is just 600lbs or so more than a 21' boat, whose weight delta is spread across those extra feet of hull. They still need to be tanked. With the bigger boats there is just more room to hide it.

I'll just say that his previous boat ran an indmar and was
In and out of the shop. This left a very bad "taste
In his mouth". That caused him to sell and get his MB which has been bullet proof for 600+ hours.
So for him - he only wants to stick with PCM now.

I'll just say that his previous boat ran an indmar and was
In and out of the shop. This left a very bad "taste
In his mouth". That caused him to sell and get his MB which has been bullet proof for 600+ hours.
So for him - he only wants to stick with PCM now.

Do you know what the problems were? As noted, a gm long block is a gm long block. The marinizers are all starting from the same starting point, and then hanging their own intakes, exhausts, raw water pumps, and alternators on them.

Having had both, the impeller change and winterizing are a little easier on indmar. The oil change is a little easier on pcm. It's a net "meh?" imho. I wouldn't be worried about a gm powerplant marinized by indmar.

Is today your first day on Wakeworld...? The "pure vert" ballast system on MB's has been discussed ad nauseum. Almost every MB owner talks about it and YouTube is full of videos showing it.

Frankly, I've had it in two boats. And yes, it's nice. But like all ballast systems it has weaknesses. The biggest is that you can't get weight to the belly or the bow. This is huge, IMHO. Just look at how many MB owners are putting 500 lb. sacks in their bows... Or how many are adding sacks for their surf wake. The MB system is sweet if you only run stock ballast, but the minute you add a sack and a pump you have defeated the purpose.

The other thing to keep in mind is that pump systems are getting faster and faster. Is 2-3 mins really too long to wait anymore? I don't think so especially when you get the advantage of having bow and belly ballast.

Not my first Wakeworld rodeo and I guess we are discussing it again... I just do not see many MB's and I do not even know where the local dealer is located so I basically ignore any posts. I think I've seen only 1 rolling by the house. Regardless, I still like the fill/dump system itself. From what you say it is just not putting the ballast it in all the right places and maybe they need something more traditional in the bow. Lord knows I have chased enough traditional pump issues, especially those in salt, to justify anything simplified.

Cant speak of all obviously - but I can speak of several different times I was on that boat and we got stranded. Fuel pump issue once, starter once, overheating twice, tranny once. All in the first year. im sure Indmars are just as good and reliable, but as an owner - when that happens to you (which was his 3rd boat) , it just becomes difficult to look past.
Just from my own experience with my 2 first gen Xstars - were always in the shop for something. JUst with those experiences- I will never buy an MC ever again. Even now with the illmore's - I could never do it. I have buddys with stars that all run strong. But because I had those experiences with 2 boats, its engrained in me. So I understand his thought process.

On the marinizing comparison between the PCM and Indmar, each company also programs the ECM which controls the fuel injection, ignigiton, sensors, etc...This is a pretty big piece of controlling a "fly by wire" engine. They do use the GM MEFI module, but the programming is proprietary to each.

Also, a big difference in the raw water pumps between PCM and Indmar, PCM has designed an built their own "modular" pump which to me is a better design and will prove more reliable.
My previous PCM engine had an "off the shelf" RWP, and watching it run on the front of the engine, it looked unbalanced and a problem waiting to happen. I never did have a big problem, but it was starting to leak from the shaft, and it did shred a couple of impellers with what appeared to be no outside trash through the strainer.

The problems most people will experience with a GM marine engine will be in the ancilliary parts hanging on the engine.

LOL, till you then read all the threads complaining about the lack of storage (Levi's x30 vs LSV thread comes to mind, where the MC was given points for bow storage over the LSV even though that means no bow ballast).

Tradeoffs indeed!

For the record, is anybody advocating weight in the nose on the MB 23s?

I never understood the storage argument against factory bow ballast. Are you honestly telling me you'd rather have bow storage than hidden, factory, bow ballast...? And if you are, then just order it that way. Levi could have had an LSV sans bow ballast. The fact is that almost every Wakesetter has the bow ballast for a reason... People want it and consciously make the choice.

As far as the 23 TWB, no it doesn't need now ballast to avoid the massive porpoising common in the 21, but isn't it a fact that every wake boat needs weight in the bow to achieve its full potential...? If MB had offered it as an option, would you have checked that box?

Even MB knows he needs weight up there... Why else would the 2007 MB B52 V23 Team Edition come with bow ballast from the factory? Why else would MB himself tell me that he's built some of the new boats for pros with sand or concrete under the bow seats??

Trust me, MB knows they need weight upfront. The only reason they don't have it is because they can't get it there with pure vert.

I actually don't disagree with you Dave. What I was trying to get across is that not having bow ballast can be a perverse marketing tool. The x30 doesn't have it, and consequently there's bow storage even with "full factory ballast." you could order an LSV that way, but then you'd have a less desirable boat for resale because it wouldn't have "full factory ballast," even though both boats would have nearly identical factory ballast.

So for some folks, just the *availability* of bow ballast is clearly a demerit because if they appropriately choose not to buy it, they've now got a "less than" (can't claim "loaded") boat.

I'm sure there must be MB dealers who make this same argument (2100lbs AND bow storage!).

I'll stand by my thought that the 23twb doesn't need bow ballast, at least not as a compliment to the existing factory ballast. I've ridden with 400 in kids in the bow and it really doesn't change the wake IMHO. But for pros who are running weight on top of factory ballast I'm sure it might make sense. For the 99%, the tube wake is just fine without bow ballast.